Top Five
Baseless and Subversive Arguments Against the Second Amendment

by Michael Chapdelaine

01/07/08

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Second Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America ratified effective December 15, 1791

1. The Second Amendment is not an
individual right; it’s a collective one only for militias.

Interpreting the Second Amendment in its
proper context clearly designates it as an individual right. Amendments in
the Bill of Rights besides the Second use the same language – phrase “the
right of the people” or “the people” – to recognize the natural,
individual rights of the citizenry.

The Constitution and its first ten
Amendments were not written and agreed upon in a hurried or ill-considered
fashion. Every article, section, paragraph, line, and word was debated ad
nauseum. If the Second Amendment was meant as collective recognition, the
language would have been along the lines of “each State shall have…” The
Tenth Amendment, for instance, deliberately uses the distinguishing
language “…reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If the
Second Amendment only applies to a state’s right to regulate its own
militia then this would be the only instance in the Bill of Rights where
that language or phrase peculiarly and ambiguously deals with a state
right.

The logical extension of an implication
that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective one must be that
similarly freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition are
not individual rights. The perverse collective interpretation then
complicates all the Amendments:

What about the Third Amendment; is the
“Owner” then the respective states?

What about the Fourth Amendment; is “the
people” not referring to individual protection from unreasonable search
and seizure?

What about the Sixth Amendment; is the
lack the specificity due to the obvious grounds for interpreting the
right to a speedy and public trial a state right?

The argument that the Second Amendment is
collective while the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth,
Ninth, and Tenth Amendments apply to the individual makes no sense in a
reasonable and sincere review. There can be no question the
right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

2. Owning a gun is a privilege that should
be regulated.

The Bill of Rights does not bestow any
privileges; it recognizes “natural” rights. Natural Law theory, a
philosophical driver of the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional
framework, posits that humans desire freedom as it stems from our very
nature. Government cannot take away these natural rights from an
individual – given to us by God, our creator – without procedural due
process. Moreover, they cannot be legislated out of existence, i.e.,
government may not decide that basic freedoms – like freedom of expression
– no longer exist.

Along this line of thinking, the Second
Amendment simply recognizes the individual’s right to self-defense; a free
person is entitled to defend their self from harm or mortal peril. This is
the reason that intrusive legislation that effectively negates the right
to keep (decide upon, purchase, acquire, own, and maintain) and bear
(readily carry or retain on one’s person in public or accessible in their
abode) arms are unacceptable “regulation”.

3. The Constitution was written for
flintlock muskets; they couldn’t foresee modern weapons.

First of all the Second Amendment uses the
word “arms”, not the much more narrow word “firearms”. The Second
Amendment is intentionally broad to recognize the right of the
citizen to keep and bear all manner of weaponry – from sharp sticks
to rocket launchers – useful against tyrannical government and other
enemies of free men.

It is nothing less than absurd to argue
that the Second Amendment is any way implicitly limited to the firearms of
the day. To say the Second Amendment should be limited to only 18th
Century weapons would be no different than saying the First Amendment only
protects the spoken word, writing with quill and ink on parchment, and
publication via manually operated, Gutenberg-style printing presses. Would
any Second Amendment iconoclast sincerely argue that the Founders would
object to ideas and thoughts expressed using the telephone, typewriter,
radio, billboard, television, computer, and Internet? Is the First
Amendment inapplicable to or incompatible with these new technologies?

The Founding Fathers were very clear (in
their numerous writings and speeches) about the arms meaning all manner of
military weapons for the primary purpose of self-defense against unjust
attacks initiated by the government. Tench Coxe, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress wrote in Benjamin Franklin’s
Pennsylvania Gazette on
February 20th 1788:

Congress have no power to
disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of
the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power
of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands
of the people.

To suggest that men epitomizing the
culmination of the Age of Enlightenment lacked the foresight to expect
technological progress and innovation in the tools of war is obnoxiously
pessimistic, at best. There were several signatories of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution expressly involved in scientific
endeavors and its practical application. Benjamin Franklin, for instance,
was a leading scientist and active inventor; a significant figure in not
only political history but scientific. He pioneered work in electricity,
oceanic currents, meteorology, and heat transfer. He invented the
lightning rod, bifocals, iron furnace stove, carriage odometer, flexible
urinary catheter, and a musical instrument known as the glass [h]armonica.
This was a man with certain philosophical and technological vision. Hugh
Williamson was a fellow scientist and physician of international renown.
The polymath Thomas Jefferson was among other things, a horticulturalist,
architect, archeologist, paleontologist, and inventor. Josiah Bartlett and
Benjamin Rush were physicians. Stephen Hopkins was a foundryman and
surveyor. Jacob Broom was a fellow surveyor. Moreover, the balance of the
Founding Fathers had a general intellectual character and experience taken
from soldiering, business activity, litigation, and philosophy further
proving they had a clear idea of the broad implications and consequences
of a populace keeping and bearing the latest, most advanced armaments.

American Revolutionaries, lest one forget,
brought their own cannons to the fields of battle; they had private
artillery pieces. As well, they used the latest in contemporary small
arms, e.g., rifles. Smoothbore, shoulder-fired weapons were destined for
obsolescence with the introduction of the rifled barrel. So we must ask
detractors of the established right to keep and bear arms: Does the Second
Amendment discontinue its applicability at the introduction of

Ball and cap? Circa 1830

A revolving cylindrical breech?
Generally recognized in 1835 but examples date back as far as 1680

Breech loading? More prevalent in the 19th
Century but examples date back as far as the 14th

Self-contained cartridges? Circa 1850

Manually cycled repeating rifles? Circa
1860

Smokeless powder? Circa 1884

Semi-automatic and automatic operation?
Circa 1885

Spitzer shaped bullets? Circa 1898

If the Second Amendment is an anachronism
of 1791, then there should be no objection to citizens keeping and bearing
muzzle-loaded mortars.

A Soldier Loading a 60 Millimeter
Mortar via the Muzzle

If the technological cutoff is the
percussion cap of 1830, then there should be no objection to citizens
keeping and bearing rocket propelled grenades.

Notorious RPG-7 Fired via Percussion
Cap

If the technological cutoff is breech
loading circa the Late Middle Ages, then there should be no objection to
citizens keeping and bearing single shot, recoilless rifles.

Single Shot, Breech-Loading Carl Gustav
Recoilless Rifle

4. The Second Amendment was written in a
time when people needed to hunt.

The Second Amendment’s basis lies in the
natural right of self-defense. For the Founding Fathers, the Second
Amendment was not a dispensable exercise in “what if?” They had confronted
an oppressive government with personal armaments and succeeded in securing
liberty. The Second Amendment is a provision ensuring that citizens would
always have the necessary tools for physical resistance to future tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson, chief drafter of the
Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States,
wrote in a November 13th 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith:

And what country can preserve
its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. …The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Patrick Henry, “radical” advocate of the
American Revolution, militia leader, and Virginia Governor, delivered the
following words in a 1788 speech to the Virginia convention to ratify the
Constitution:

Guard with jealous attention
the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you
give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

The Bill of Rights recognizes the right of
the citizen to keep and bear arms for the essential purpose of

Ensuring the citizenry of the United
States of America is always more powerful than the government.

Delivering the common person from and
keeping out of a condition of bondage.

Protecting Constitutionally recognized
civil rights; any government attempt to steal liberty may be met with
resistant and punishing force.

Citizens of McMinn County, Tennessee
Celebrate the Armed Overthrow of Local Government in 1946

Free men may keep and bear arms for the
added purpose of

Hunting.

Recreational and sporting activity.

Historical review shows that genocides and
successful repression of people striving for liberty were possible because
a government or ruling body sent armed soldiers and servants to act
against an unarmed populace. The Founding Fathers wisely provided a
counter to such an end for the American citizen. The framers of the
Constitution made it abundantly clear that government should not have a
monopoly on force of arms; the people must have the means for physical
resistance to tyranny and check government gone wild.

5. The Second Amendment says “well
regulated.”

First, well regulated applies to the
militia. Second, one must examine the etymology of the word “regulated”.
It should not be taken as implying formation of militias ought to be
prevented or harassed by copious legislation.

Regulate originates with the Latin
regula, meaning “rule”. Late Latin meaning comes from regulare, i.e.,
“to control by rule”. English usage by the 17th Century was
taken as meaning, “rule for management”. In Constitutional context during
the Revolutionary period, the meaning was “disciplined”. The Second
Amendment is therefore saying that militias – collections of able-bodied
men – should not be a wild rabble if they are to have social value and act
effectively against veteran, professional soldiers. Militias should be
principled, organized, orderly, train regularly, have a degree of
standardization in equipment, and have competent and inspiring leadership.

Regulation is not applicable to the “right
of the people to keep and bear Arms,” which is why it “shall not be
infringed.”